Sunday, March 26, 2017

Burak Bekdil : Extremist Muslims' One-Way Street

Extremist Muslims' One-Way Street

Extremist Muslims'
understanding of freedom is a one-way street: Freedoms, such as
religious rights, are "good" and must be defended if they are intended
for Muslims -- often where Muslims are in minority. But they can simply
be ignored if they are intended for non-Muslims -- often in lands where
Muslims make up the majority.

Many Muslim countries, apparently, already have travel bans against other Muslims, in addition to banning Israelis.

Look at Saudi Arabia. Deportation and a lifetime ban is the
minimum penalty for non-Muslims trying to enter the holy cities of Mecca
and Medina.

Given the state of non-Muslim religious and human rights, and the
sheer lack of religious pluralism in most Muslim countries, why do
Muslim nations suddenly become human rights champions in the face of a
ban on travel to the U.S.?

Meanwhile, Muslims will keep on loving the "infidels" who support
Muslim rights in non-Muslim lands, while keeping up intimidation of the
same "infidels" in their own lands.

President Donald Trump's executive order of January 27, 2017,
temporarily limiting entry from seven majority-Muslim countries – Iran,
Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- for 90 days, until
vetting procedures can be put in place -- has caused international controversy, sparking protests both in the Western and Islamic worlds, including in increasingly Islamist Turkey.

This article does not intend to discuss whether Trump's ban is a
racist, illegal order, or a perfectly justified action in light of
threatened American interests. The ban, right or wrong, has once again
unveiled the hypocrisy of extremist Muslims on civil liberties and on
what is and what is NOT racist. Extremist Muslims' understanding of
freedom is a one-way street: Freedoms, such as religious rights, are
"good" and must be defended if they are intended for Muslims -- often
where Muslims are in minority. But they can simply be ignored if they
are intended for non-Muslims -- often in lands where Muslims make up the
majority.

Muslims have been in a rage across the world. Iran's swift and sharp
answer came in a Tweet from Foreign Minister Javad Zarif who said that
the ban was "a great gift to extremists." A government statement in
Tehran said that the U.S. travel restrictions were an insult to the
Muslim world, and threatened U.S. citizens with "reciprocal measures."
Many Muslim countries, apparently, already have travel bans against
other Muslims, in addition to banning Israelis.

Sudan, host and supporter of various extremist Muslim terror groups including al-Qaeda, said
the ban was "very unfortunate." In Iraq, a coalition of paramilitary
groups called on the government to ban U.S. nationals from entering the
country and to expel those currently on Iraqi soil.

In Turkey where the extremist Islamic government is unusually soft on
Trump's ban -- in order not to antagonize the new president -- a senior
government official called the order "a discriminative decision."
Deputy Prime Minister and government spokesman Numan Kurtulmus said:

"Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that rising
Islamophobia, xenophobia and anti-immigrant feelings have a great weight
on this decision. Taking such a decision in a country such as America,
where different ethnic and religious groups are able to co-exist, is
very offensive."

The ruling party's deputy chairman, Yasin Aktay, called the ban "racist," and said:
"This is totally against human rights, a big violation of human
rights." Aktay also said that he had started to "worry about the future
of the U.S."

Turkey's top Muslim cleric, Mehmet Gormez, praised
the Americans who rushed to the airports to protest the ban. "[This] is
very important. It gives us hope," he said -- presumably meaning that
non-Muslim protestors will continue to advocate for Muslim rights in
non-Muslim lands.

Turkish government bigwigs and the top Islamic authority seem not to
have heard of their own country's dismal human rights record when it
comes to non-Muslim minorities. Most recently, Turkey's Association of
Protestant Churches noted in a report
that hate speech against the country's Christians increased in both the
traditional media and social media. It said that hate speech against
Protestants persisted throughout 2016, in addition to physical attacks
on Protestant individuals and their churches.

Nevertheless, the Islamist's one-way sympathy for human rights (for
Muslims) and his one-way affection for discrimination (against
non-Muslims) is not just Turkish, but global. What is the treatment of
non-Muslim (or sometimes even non-extremist Muslim) visitors to some of
the Muslim cities and sites in the countries that decry Trump's
"racist," and "discriminative" ban that "violates human rights?"
In a 2016 visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Muslim
custodians of the site did not allow entry to this author, despite the
Turkish passport submitted to them, saying "you do not look Muslim
enough." And Muslims now complain of "discrimination?" Incidentally, Al
Aqsa Mosque is, theoretically at least, open to visits from non-Muslims, except on Fridays.

Look at Saudi Arabia. Deportation and a lifetime ban is the minimum penalty for non-Muslims trying to enter the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. In 2013, the Saudi Minister of Justice, Mohamed el-Eissi, insisted that "the cradle of the Muslim sanctities will not allow the establishment of any other places of worship."
The Saudi ban on other religious houses of worship comes from a
Salafi tradition that prohibits the existence of two religions in the
Arabian Peninsula. In the Saudi kingdom, the law requires that all
citizens must be Muslims; the government does not provide legal
protection for freedom of religion; and the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited.

In Iran, where even non-Muslim female visitors must wear the Islamic
headscarf, the government continues to imprison, harass, intimidate and
discriminate against people based on religious beliefs. A 2014 U.S.
State Department annual report noted that non-Muslims faced "substantial
societal discrimination, aided by official support." At the release of the report,
then Secretary of State John Kerry said: "Sadly, the pages of this
report that are being released today are filled with accounts of
minorities being denied rights in countries like Burma, Iran, Pakistan,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, many others".

In Iran, marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim men are not
recognized unless the husband produces proof that he has converted to
Islam. The mullahs' government does not ensure the right of citizens to
change or renounce their religious faith. Apostasy, specifically
conversion from Islam, can be punishable by death. In 2013, 79 people
from religious minorities were sentenced
to a total of 3,620 months in prison, 200 months of probation, 75
lashes and 41 billion rials in fines [approximately $1.3 million].

That being the state of non-Muslim religious and human rights, and
the sheer lack of religious pluralism in most Muslim countries, why do
Muslim nations suddenly become human rights champions in the face of a
ban on travel to the U.S.? Why, for instance, does Turkey never
criticizes the extreme shortcomings of freedoms in the Muslim world but
calls the U.S. ban "racist?"
Why does the Iranian government think that Trump's ban is a "gift to
the [Muslim] extremists?" In claiming that travel bans would supposedly
fuel extremism, how come Iran does not think that its own persecution of
religious minorities is a "gift" to non-Muslims?
Such questions will probably remain unanswered in the Muslim world.
Meanwhile, Muslims will keep on loving the "infidels" who support Muslim
rights in non-Muslim lands, while keeping up intimidation of the same
"infidels" in their own lands.

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journalists, was
just fired from Turkey's leading newspaper after 29 years, for writing
what was taking place in Turkey for Gatestone. He is a Fellow at the
Middle East Forum.

Subscribe To

Followers

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, religious tolerance, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.